Samsung brags that it's "easy to carry and operate with one hand."

Samsung has announced a more petite version of its Galaxy S 4, named the Galaxy S 4 mini, according to a press release Thursday. The phone has a 4.3-inch screen, smaller than the regular Galaxy S 4’s 5-inch screen, with similarly pared-down internals.

The Galaxy S 4 mini will have a 960×540 screen, 1.7GHz dual-core processor, 8GB of storage (5GB is available and accessible to users), 1.5GB of RAM, and an 8-megapixel rear-facing camera. These are a number of small spec bumps from the Galaxy S III mini released last year with its 800×480 screen, dual-core 1GHz processor, and 5-megapixel camera.

Samsung makes special note that the Galaxy S 4 mini is “easy to carry and operate with one hand,” apparently a feature worth highlighting in these Galaxy Note 8.0 times we live in. The phone also comes with all the S 4’s TouchWiz add-ons installed over Android 4.2 Jelly Bean, including S Translator, ChatOn, WatchOn, Group Play, and new camera and photo-sharing features.

The phone will come in a 4G LTE version as well as a version with two 3G SIM cards, with availability differing depending on the market. Neither a specific release date nor a price was announced, though the phone will debut more formally with hands-on time at Samsung’s upcoming Samsung Premier 2013 event being held in London on June 20.

Maybe I'm missing some stroke of genius in marketing, but why take the S branding and fragment it like this? The S4, S4 Mini and S4 Ruggadized (?) all seem like different phones. Why confuse potential customers?

Maybe I'm missing some stroke of genius in marketing, but why take the S branding and fragment it like this? The S4, S4 Mini and S4 Ruggadized (?) all seem like different phones. Why confuse potential customers?

Agreed. The mini line is of decidedly non premium specification. Not going with 720p or 768p and the full 2gb if RAM to match its larger sibling is disappointing to say the least. There is a market for premier performance phones in a smaller form factor. It's a shame that Samsung isn't interested in truly servicing it.

Maybe I'm missing some stroke of genius in marketing, but why take the S branding and fragment it like this? The S4, S4 Mini and S4 Ruggadized (?) all seem like different phones. Why confuse potential customers?

I suspect the "Mini" nomenclature is a dig at the iPhone. The "mini" version of the Galaxy S4 screen is still larger than the iPhone 5.

Samsung makes special note that the Galaxy S 4 mini is “easy to carry and operate with one hand,” apparently a feature worth highlighting in these Galaxy Note 8.0 times we live in.

Why not? Ford sells the F350, but it also sells the Fiesta. Different strokes for different folks.

I do wish, however, they would have kept the internals.

I'd imagine thermal and battery constraints would preclude it from being 1:1 internally the same, but even the components that could have conveniently been made of premier specification (screen resolution and RAM) weren't made to premium spec, and that's disappointing.

I think it's a bit funny that people used to think 4.3" was too big for a smartphone and now this is Samsung's "compromise" size for those people. Of course, a lot of them seem to be the new group that thinks 4.5" is "just right" for a smartphone since the boundary's been more or less safely pushed to 5 inches.

Samsung makes special note that the Galaxy S 4 mini is “easy to carry and operate with one hand,” apparently a feature worth highlighting in these Galaxy Note 8.0 times we live in.

Why not? Ford sells the F350, but it also sells the Fiesta. Different strokes for different folks.

I do wish, however, they would have kept the internals.

I'd imagine thermal and battery constraints would preclude it from being 1:1 internally the same, but even the components that could have conveniently been made of premier specification (screen resolution and RAM) weren't made to premium spec, and that's disappointing.

Screens are really just based off what's in the market at the time (e.g. Apple's "Retina" display was just a first dibs on LG's new panel) and I doubt the 4.3" screen market is profitable enough any more to offer anything above QHD, especially when the QHD lines have been going for over two years now.

This phone honestly sounds like my old Evo 3D, except with not-terrible software and a lot thinner and lighter (although without the 3D of course.)

Samsung makes special note that the Galaxy S 4 mini is “easy to carry and operate with one hand,” apparently a feature worth highlighting in these Galaxy Note 8.0 times we live in.

Why not? Ford sells the F350, but it also sells the Fiesta. Different strokes for different folks.

I do wish, however, they would have kept the internals.

I'd imagine thermal and battery constraints would preclude it from being 1:1 internally the same, but even the components that could have conveniently been made of premier specification (screen resolution and RAM) weren't made to premium spec, and that's disappointing.

I suppose better phrasing would be "kept parity" or something along those lines. It's just so under-powered to be called an "S4" that it sort of cheapens the line.

I don't get all the hate. This seems perfect for someone who has been waiting for an upgrade for their Galaxy S2. Higher resolution, faster processor, more RAM, but most importantly: same size. Most people buy their phones on subsidized on contracts, so if you bought a GS2 two years ago, an you are finally eligible for an upgrade, the current crop of smartphones probably seems gargantuan.

This phone honestly sounds like my old Evo 3D, except with not-terrible software and a lot thinner and lighter (although without the 3D of course.)

I'm sure it has a much better battery life and camera too.

All in all a good phone with good specs that's not a monster sized device. Still a little light on the resolution and RAM, but unlike HTC, they were smart enough to have an SD slot when they gimped the onboard storage.

I imagine the 2014 "Mid range" phones will be utterly perfect in size, resolution, and power.

Gah, when will SOMONE in the Android world figure out that there is a huge market for a small premium phone? Why the hell is it that not one OEM other than Apple can make a small phone without castrating the specs?

If there really wasn't a market for small, premium phones, I could understand it, but, uh, there is that tiny detail of the best selling smartphone in the world: the iPhone.

So, if someone wants a high-end phone that's not the size of a minor planetoid, Samsung actually wants those prospective customers to buy Apple.

Yup, and pay more than twice the price for a shiny Apple.

The operative word is high-end. If the Galaxy S4 Mini were to be compared to an Apple model, it would go up against the iPhone 4S, if anything, not the current flagship.

It's generally agreed that the Samsung Galaxy S model has a better CPU, and the iPhone of the same generation has a better GPU. Overall they balance out to be about the same overall in total performance.

An unlocked Galaxy S4, purchased outright, costs about $650. Based on the price of the unlocked iPhone 4S when it was the flagship, and the iPhone 5 now that it's Apple's flagship phone, it's reasonable to assume that the iPhone 5S will probably cost about $650 for the 16gb model.

It takes a whole lot of engineering skill to pack equal technical capability into a smaller space, and that engineering costs a whole lot more than what the lower material costs of a smaller case and smaller screen would save. it actually looks like the Galaxy S4 is the one that's twice the price for what you're getting.

Why not? Ford sells the F350, but it also sells the Fiesta. Different strokes for different folks.

I do wish, however, they would have kept the internals.

That's kind of the point. Ford doesn't call the Fiesta a "F350 mini". If you're going to have hardware that is not even remotely related to the S4, why call it one?

Marketing. Samsung sells a number of different phones, but the Galaxy brand is their strongest. So if all that someone knows is "the Galaxy is the best, that's the one to get", but they are put off by the size, then using the term "mini" might make them think "this is the best phone and it's smaller. Great!".

If you take the example of the iPad Mini, it's hardware is fairly back-of-the-bus compared to the current iternation of the iPad. However, Apple wasn't going to call it anythign else (e.g.: iNote, or something), because they want to leverage the power of the iPad brand.

I don't get all the hate. This seems perfect for someone who has been waiting for an upgrade for their Galaxy S2. Higher resolution, faster processor, more RAM, but most importantly: same size. Most people buy their phones on subsidized on contracts, so if you bought a GS2 two years ago, an you are finally eligible for an upgrade, the current crop of smartphones probably seems gargantuan.

Depends on the variant of the S2 you are talking about. For example, the S4 Mini would barely be an upgrade from my wife's S2 HD LTE. In fact, it would be a downgrade on the screen!

I'm about to finally join the smartphone age (Ting!) and my leading candidate has been the S3 though I've been concerned about its width--I have medium-smaller hands and find my wife's S3 to be notably harder to grip well than my old iPod touch. This S4 mini, as un-S4 like as it is, appears to stack up relatively well against the Sprint-model S3 specs-wise, but it's as narrow as my iPod. I'll need to see the screen in person, and learn about the rest of the specs, but if the price is right this may be right up my ally.

I was hoping to see an *actual* S4 hardware package in a smaller phone. I guess that was silly of me...

I think it's not so much that Samsung is unwilling to make such a powerful little beast so much as they simply can't. Packing that much performance and battery life into a tiny package is very difficult. This challenge is most likely the reason why all these plus-sized phones came into being in the first place.

Rather than struggling with miniaturizing the guts and optimizing the software/hardware for performance and battery life, it's simpler to hide a bigger battery under the extra area of a larger screen.

I think it's not so much that Samsung is unwilling to make such a powerful little beast so much as they simply can't. Packing that much performance and battery life into a tiny package is very difficult. This challenge is most likely the reason why all these plus-sized phones came into being in the first place.

Rather than struggling with miniaturizing the guts and optimizing the software/hardware for performance and battery life, it's simpler to hide a bigger battery under the extra area of a larger screen.

There's two factors that make me believe it's not quite as impossible as it seems to make a powerful smaller phone. The first is that the *biggest* determinant of functional battery life on a smartphone is the size of the screen (whose power consumption scales effectively by area) - a 4-inch phone has 64% of the screen area of a 5-inch one, so a battery two-thirds the size would likely work fairly well.

The second issue I have is that, according to my understanding, while performance has improved for phones today compared to 3 years ago, there aren't really that many more *chips* in the phones, and their package footprints aren't largely different (not to mention their power efficiency for a given function should be better). In fact, in many cases they've managed to consolidate even more features together into the multifunctional SoCs of today, so designing a PCB to fit all the components shouldn't have a largely different cost.

Now, designing an efficient PCB is of course a notable cost of building a smartphone; one manufacturers were/are willing to spend if they have/had to but wouldn't say no if somebody gave them a way of reducing those costs. Say, for example, by having marketing push the fact that bigger phones are better and having engineering take a free (cost-saving) ride along.

So long as people keep buying the phones, it's a no-lose scenario for the phone manufacturers.

So, if someone wants a high-end phone that's not the size of a minor planetoid, Samsung actually wants those prospective customers to buy Apple.

Yup, and pay more than twice the price for a shiny Apple.

Really? Can you show me a Samsung phone that's the same size of the iPhone 5 with the comparable specs and performance (CPU/GPU performance, battery life, etc,.) ? Don't bother quoting the number of cores, that's not the true measure of performance.

In any case the S4 (not mini) cost almost as much as the iPhone 5 at retail. Certainly not half the cost.

""What's so hard about making smaller high-end phones?" he asked, noting that Apple's iPhone 5 is "the only high-end smartphone smaller than 4.3-inches."" - PhoneDog

I think it's not so much that Samsung is unwilling to make such a powerful little beast so much as they simply can't. Packing that much performance and battery life into a tiny package is very difficult. This challenge is most likely the reason why all these plus-sized phones came into being in the first place.

Rather than struggling with miniaturizing the guts and optimizing the software/hardware for performance and battery life, it's simpler to hide a bigger battery under the extra area of a larger screen.

There's two factors that make me believe it's not quite as impossible as it seems to make a powerful smaller phone. The first is that the *biggest* determinant of functional battery life on a smartphone is the size of the screen (whose power consumption scales effectively by area) - a 4-inch phone has 64% of the screen area of a 5-inch one, so a battery two-thirds the size would likely work fairly well.

The second issue I have is that, according to my understanding, while performance has improved for phones today compared to 3 years ago, there aren't really that many more *chips* in the phones, and their package footprints aren't largely different (not to mention their power efficiency for a given function should be better). In fact, in many cases they've managed to consolidate even more features together into the multifunctional SoCs of today, so designing a PCB to fit all the components shouldn't have a largely different cost.

Now, designing an efficient PCB is of course a notable cost of building a smartphone; one manufacturers were/are willing to spend if they have/had to but wouldn't say no if somebody gave them a way of reducing those costs. Say, for example, by having marketing push the fact that bigger phones are better and having engineering take a free (cost-saving) ride along.

So long as people keep buying the phones, it's a no-lose scenario for the phone manufacturers.

Well, I think a larger part is tuning the software to the hardware. Witness the big difference in battery life between Macbooks running Windows in Boot Camp vs. OS X. I don't think most Android phone makers are willing to tweak their software at a lower level than slapping in some new features and iffy UI on their hardware.

I think Apple really threw their lot in with being the best at making phones smaller than anyone else and is probably gnashing their teeth at the unexpected popularity of these big phones.

And this confusion is exactly why I highly doubt Apple will ever put out a cheaper phone named "iPhone".

They don't need to. They just keep the last two year's models going, and the carriers subsidize the oldest one for free with 2 year service agreement, and you get a far better phone with a less frustrating user experience than all the other carrier subsidized free smartphones.

And this confusion is exactly why I highly doubt Apple will ever put out a cheaper phone named "iPhone".

They don't need to. They just keep the last two year's models going, and the carriers subsidize the oldest one for free with 2 year service agreement, and you get a far better phone with a less frustrating user experience than all the other carrier subsidized free smartphones.

Many find the iOS experience rather frustrating though. Besides, signing a two-year contract for an old model is not very smart. I find the older model Samsung or LG phones on pay-as-you-go a better alternative.

“easy to carry and operate with one hand”. I am amazed that no-one has mentioned that this is a claim made in an ad. for the iPhone, to much ridicule from some Android partisans. Yes, different people have different usage habits and different size preferences. (For example, whether you want a phone screen big enough to watch movies on probably depends on whether you usually have a tablet available for that.)